Summary:
When dynamically linking two binaries together, different builds of RocksDB from two sources might cause errors. To provide a tool for user to solve the problem, the RocksDB namespace is changed to a flag which can be overridden in build time.
Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/6433
Test Plan: Build release, all and jtest. Try to build with ROCKSDB_NAMESPACE with another flag.
Differential Revision: D19977691
fbshipit-source-id: aa7f2d0972e1c31d75339ac48478f34f6cfcfb3e
Summary:
The `DeleteRange` end key is exclusive, not inclusive. Updated API comment accordingly.
Pull Request resolved: https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/4935
Differential Revision: D13905406
Pulled By: ajkr
fbshipit-source-id: f577db841a279427991ecf9005cd56b30c8eb3c7
Summary:
Extend TransactionOptions to include max_write_batch_size which determines the maximum size of the writebatch representation. If memory limit is exceeded, the operation will abort with subcode kMemoryLimit.
Closes https://github.com/facebook/rocksdb/pull/2124
Differential Revision: D4861842
Pulled By: lth
fbshipit-source-id: 46fd172ea67cc90bbba829bf0d70cfab2261c161
Summary:
Add API to WriteBatch to store range deletions in its buffer
which are later added to memtable. In the WriteBatch buffer, a range
deletion is encoded as "<optype><CF ID (optional)><begin key><end key>".
With this diff, the range tombstones are stored inline with the data in
the memtable. It's useful for now because the test cases rely on the
data being accessible via memtable. My next step is to store range
tombstones in a separate area in the memtable.
Test Plan: unit tests
Reviewers: IslamAbdelRahman, sdong, wanning
Reviewed By: wanning
Subscribers: andrewkr, dhruba, leveldb
Differential Revision: https://reviews.facebook.net/D61401
Summary:
This patch fixes#7460559. It introduces SingleDelete as a new database
operation. This operation can be used to delete keys that were never
overwritten (no put following another put of the same key). If an overwritten
key is single deleted the behavior is undefined. Single deletion of a
non-existent key has no effect but multiple consecutive single deletions are
not allowed (see limitations).
In contrast to the conventional Delete() operation, the deletion entry is
removed along with the value when the two are lined up in a compaction. Note:
The semantics are similar to @igor's prototype that allowed to have this
behavior on the granularity of a column family (
https://reviews.facebook.net/D42093 ). This new patch, however, is more
aggressive when it comes to removing tombstones: It removes the SingleDelete
together with the value whenever there is no snapshot between them while the
older patch only did this when the sequence number of the deletion was older
than the earliest snapshot.
Most of the complex additions are in the Compaction Iterator, all other changes
should be relatively straightforward. The patch also includes basic support for
single deletions in db_stress and db_bench.
Limitations:
- Not compatible with cuckoo hash tables
- Single deletions cannot be used in combination with merges and normal
deletions on the same key (other keys are not affected by this)
- Consecutive single deletions are currently not allowed (and older version of
this patch supported this so it could be resurrected if needed)
Test Plan: make all check
Reviewers: yhchiang, sdong, rven, anthony, yoshinorim, igor
Reviewed By: igor
Subscribers: maykov, dhruba, leveldb
Differential Revision: https://reviews.facebook.net/D43179
Summary:
Support RollbackToSavePoint() in WriteBatch and WriteBatchWithIndex. Support for partial transaction rollback is needed for MyRocks.
An alternate implementation of Transaction::RollbackToSavePoint() exists in D40869. However, the other implementation is messier because it is implemented outside of WriteBatch. This implementation is much cleaner and also exposes a potentially useful feature to WriteBatch.
Test Plan: Added unit tests
Reviewers: IslamAbdelRahman, kradhakrishnan, maykov, yoshinorim, hermanlee4, spetrunia, sdong, yhchiang
Reviewed By: yhchiang
Subscribers: dhruba, leveldb
Differential Revision: https://reviews.facebook.net/D42723
Summary: WriteBatch and WriteBatchWithIndex now both inherit from a common abstract base class. This makes it easier to write code that is agnostic toward the implementation of the particular write batch. In particular, I plan on utilizing this abstraction to allow transactions to support using either implementation of a write batch.
Test Plan: modified existing WriteBatchWithIndex tests to test new functions. Running all tests.
Reviewers: igor, rven, yhchiang, sdong
Reviewed By: sdong
Subscribers: dhruba, leveldb
Differential Revision: https://reviews.facebook.net/D34017
sdong